The Instigator
buelg
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Mimshot
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

should students be allowed to choose to attend school or not?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Mimshot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,080 times Debate No: 21112
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

buelg

Pro

Hello, Mr/Mrs/ ms/ madam speaker and the honorable judges, today we are going to debate on the motion students should be allowed to choose whether to attend school or not. I on the government side, have three reasons : first, the government can spend less taxes on education, second, students don't have to get bullied and lastly, you can study your job skills more.

By this, the government can spend less taxes on education. Everyone knows that the tax you or your parents pay goes to social facilities, education, and whatever that is useful in our daily lives. So, the more there are students, the more taxes you or your parents have to pay. In the other hand, less students, you pay less taxes.
If you are allowed to choose whether to attend school or not, not everyone will attend school and as a result, the number of students will decrease, making the government be allowed to use more taxes in other useful stuff.

http://stwwm.wordpress.com...
Mimshot

Con

I thank my opponent for the challenge to debate him on this important topic. This debate has a rather short character limit, so I look forward to the challenge of making my points very concisely. With that said, I'll waste no more and get right down to it.

My opponent, names three very real challenges to the education system, yet his proposed solution is wrong for all three.

R1. Taxes
Education is indeed expensive, and in this political environment favoring austerity, policy makers are constantly looking for places to cut back. My opponent suggests that the government can save money by allowing students to drop out of school. However, this is short sighted as dropouts continue to cost government money. Dropouts are substantially more likely to commit crimes[1]. In addition to the larger social costs of higher crime, arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating people costs the government money. In addition (as I will discuss below) future tax revenues are lost because dropouts are paid substantially less than graduates.

R2. Bullying
If bullying is a problem, there are many ways to fix it, such as better supervision. Letting students who are bullied drop out does not really fix the problem, and if anything makes it worse. Many successful people were bullied as children including Steve Jobs[3]. Where would we be if we let (much less encouraged) all the Steve Jobs of the world drop out of high school?

R3. Job training
Another major challenge to many education systems is that they do not adequately prepare students for jobs in the modern economy. Again, my opponent's proposal of allowing dropping out is using a sledge hammer where a screwdriver would be much better. We should improve curricula to make them better to prepare students for modern jobs. It is antithetical that somehow allowing people to drop out of school would create a better trained work force.

P1. Education is an investment for the nation
My single non-rebuttal point is that education is an investment in the future. In some ways this relates to the taxing point above. The health of a nation is determined by how much its citizen can produce, design, or invent. All of these require education and they all reward both the individual (who gets money for what he invents) and society (who get to use it). The inventors, designers, and builders of the future are also the future tax payers. When viewed in this context, schooling is a civic duty, like any other. Education should be compulsory to ensure the next generation is able to live a productive and rewarding life.

References
[1] http://www.cjcj.org...
[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[3] http://www.suntimes.com...


Debate Round No. 1
buelg

Pro

Sir, thank you for answering back to my request.
Now I'll work as the DPM.
First, I will counter rebut my opponent.

#R1.
First, I did not say that the government can save money by allowing students to drop out of the school. Well, the expression "drop out" is kind of wrong because it is their choice to attend it or not.( You can stick with that if you want.) And also, my opponent's source of information only talks about the crimes committed by drop outs in U.S. You'll never know what is going on in Asia or Europe with only that source. There still is, people who had been dropped out by some subjects in school but still became successful. For example: there is Albert Einstein and Walt Disney.

#R2
Next, supervision does not always solve bullying. If the student that had been bullied tells the teacher or parents, the bully will know that and when the supervisor is out of reach they will hit the back of that student later. And also, you don't have the information that all successful students are getting bullied. Instead, they are getting loved by the surrounding people.

#R3
Lastly, that is not always true. Come to south Korea and you'll know it. In here, not only schools make the children think what they want to be and support them by giving them options, but there are about millions of academies even in Seoul. You see, our country thinks education is very important, so we learn multiple and division in kindergarten with, of course, adding and minus. When you go into schools, you have 3 academies at least in a week. Yes, I know. The U.S.A don't go to academies normally right? It is tough for us students, too. But you can know that some places' education really strongly supports the child's future.
Now, I will have to rebut the opposition's first point.

#R4
But who knows? There can be students who have a positive mind toward learning. And by the way, you may think that you need education to live well in the future by making money with your job, right? Let's simply put it like this. The government is only doing this for the students who does not prefer the education and want to study in their own by home schooling. Who will want to not live well in the future, probably no one.

Now back to my second point. My second point is about bullying.
*P1
If students get bullied, they can sense that the surrounding does not like him or her and choose not to go to school. According to the OECD (have a look at the chart) South Korea is the first in the suicide rate. Since you don't understand Korean, in the chart, the most left statistic means the suicide rate. Korea is in the first by 21.5 and the U.S.A is 16th by 10.5. So suicide can become a serious problem and 60% of that is caused by bullying. We should reduce the mental pain of the students by allowing students to choose whether to attend school or not and they will recover eventually.
http://www.betulo.co.kr...
Mimshot

Con

My opponent criticized my sources for reflecting an American bias. This is a fair criticism in general, but not really applicable in this situation. Unfortunately, as I am a native English speaker, most of the statistics I will be able to find will be centered on the U.S., U.K, or Australia (roughly in that order). However, in this situation the sources he criticized stated that drop outs are more likely to commit crime and likely to earn less than their peers. While my source included U.S. statistics, my opponent gave no reason why it should be different in another country. As an example, lower education leading to lower wages is also true in India[1]. If my opponent thinks dropouts being more likely to commit crimes or earn less money is a uniquely American phenomenon then I invite him to provide a sourced counterexample.

R1
My opponent states: "First, I did not say that the government can save money by allowing students to drop out"
Yes, he did: "The government can spend less taxes on education." Is he backing off this argument now? I have found no evidence Albert Einstein dropped out of school and would invite my opponent to provide a source for that claim[2]. My opponent has failed to give any reason why this is a good way to save money.

R2
Again, allowing kids who are bullied to drop out makes the problem worse not better. Now, instead of bullying being something that have to endure while in school, if they are forced to drop out, they will be disadvantaged for the rest of their lives.

R3
"Lastly, that is not always true. Come to south Korea and you'll know it."
Is my opponent now arguing that there is adequate job training in school? If so it completely removes his argument that students should be allowed to drop out to pursue job training. If not, then he really hasn't countered my point that fixing schools to make them more relevant is a better solution than allowing drop outs.

R4
I agree it is not always true that better schooled people are more productive and earn more money, but it is usually true. It is true often enough to make it bad public policy to allow drop outs.

Suicide
My opponent's source does highlight the problem of suicide. It does not, as my opponent claims, make any connection to bullying. Certainly not the 60% number he claimed. It does however make the case that suicide rates go up with income inequality and lack of social integration. Dropping out of school reduces earning potential and causes a lack of social integration. This point strengthens my argument that students should not be allowed to drop out.

My opponent has abandoned most of his arguments from the first round and not rebutted mine to the contrary. This is not his fault as he had little choice arguing such an untenable position. For these many reasons, the government should not allow students to drop out of school.

References
  1. http://cds.ac.in...
  2. http://www.nobelprize.org...
  3. http://www.betulo.co.kr...
Debate Round No. 2
buelg

Pro

Now, I'll speak as a DPM2

http://www.munhwa.com... Have a look at this site.
This is a news article that talks about a college student from Canada and the U.S had been working as a English teacher in Korea because of low scores they've got. They had conspired to buy cigars and give it to Korean students which they really did.
This source I found here proves that my opponent doesn't have any excuses to talk about others occasions, at least he could find it in his language, you know.

Now I'll counter rebut my opponent.

R1.
No, I'm not trying to back of my arguments. I was just telling you, the expression "drop out" is not right, because the students are the one who is choosing and the word "drop out" is too forceful. If you don't know about Albert Einstein getting dropped out, why don't you read a book about him? Really, seriously. He had failed to attend school well because he couldn't do well in the subject: math, so he finally choose not to got to school and began home schooling. I hope you got the information you wished.

R2.
http://news.chosun.com... Have a look at this article. You are right in the fact that students who are bullied shouldn't get dropped out. But I won't back off from my position. So, in south Korea, the government prevented bullying by making the bully go to other schools. It is confirmed a law, hurray! But what I'm trying to say is, still, the students who got bullied before, can get bullied again right? ( by other people ) So that is when they make the choice to drop out.

R3.
My opponent has a great point there making me paralyzed. But you know, there is adequate job training in school, but there is more adequate job training in academies I mentioned before. ("but there are about millions of academies even in Seoul. You see, our country thinks education is very important, so we learn multiple and division in kindergarten with, of course, adding and minus. When you go into schools, you have 3 academies at least in a week. ") What I'm trying to say is, (judges please listen carefully) that rather than attending a moderate job training, why not go to stronger ones outside school?

R4.
Judges: Please mark that my opponent had accepted my counter rebut up there.

R5.
Finally, ( gee, my hands are sweating )
Judges: please mark that my opponent did not have an argument here.
You see, 60% was because of bullying, 25% because of education, 10% because of jobs, 5% because of personal lives they commit suicide. It was shown in the OECD chart.

He said that I abandoned most of my arguments and did not rebutted his. No I didn't, I was talking right at the last go up and look will you judges? You see my first and second point about bullying and taxes. Right? And I was keep on rebutting your argument, which there was only one.
Mimshot

Con

I suspect there may be some meaning lost in translation between our arguments as we seem to be talking past each other at some points. I do hope my opponent is not penalized. I know it takes a considerable amount of currage to engage in an intellectual conversation at this level in a foreign language and certainly more language skills than I posses. However, I hope also that I will not be penalized for not responding to points I don't understand. I'll list two here before moving on to arguing the resolution. If my opponent can make them more clear then I will try to respond in the final round, if not, then fine, but I do not wish to concede any points.
  • This source I found here proves that my opponent doesn't have any excuses to talk about others occasions, at least he could find it in his language, you know.
  • You are right in the fact that students who are bullied shouldn't get dropped out. But I won't back off from my position.


Canadian who taught in Korea
One bad teacher doesn't prove anything. If there is a bad teacher he should be fired. Allowing kids to drop out isn't the right solution.

R1.

Please check my source from the last round. Einstein earned his diploma in 1901 and his doctorate in 1905. Even if this weren't the case, it's largely irrelevant. If kids are struggling in school the need to be offered more help, not shown the door and asked if they really want to stay. Again, allowing kids to drop out isn't the right solution.

R2.

"You are right in the fact that students who are bullied shouldn't get dropped out." My opponent seems confused about what "drop out" means. This refers to voluntarily leaving school, not being removed. It is the policy that he proposes legitimizing and I oppose. If kids are bullied they should be helped. Allowing kids to drop out makes the problem worse, not better.

R3.

If there is better job training outside school, the it should be brought into the school. My opponent admits as much. Again, allowing kids to drop out isn't the right solution.

R4.

To this points I said in round 1 that better educated people produce more and thus contribute more to society (including through taxes). In round 2 my opponent said that there are some uneducated successful people. I countered that this was the exception and didn't happen often enough to merit government endorsement of quitting school because, on the whole, better educated citizens are better citizens. My opponent claimed I accepted his counter, but a brief review will show this is not the case.

R5.

I have read automated translations of both his source and the linked paper. I could find no mention of bullying. I also searched extensively for any OECD study claiming 60% of suicides are due to bullying, either in Korea or anywhere else. A brief search by the judges will confirm this.

Debate Round No. 3
buelg

Pro

You had said that I had criticized your sources for reflecting an american bias.
And your excuse to that was: "Since I am a native english speaker, most of the statistics I wil be able to find will be centered on the U.s, U.k, or austrailia.
So what I'm asking is how come I'm a south korean and I found an information about the other foreign people, you can find at least people who came to your country, you know.

Oh, I was saying that you were right about students who are bullied getting dropped out. So I had a rebut for that, too.
(As I went through this debate, I found out that we only had counter rebuts and not much of oppinions. Let's finish the last round by summarizing.)

Now I'll talks as the WIP.

To counter rebut only briefly,
R1.
Hey, no offence but, you asked me: "then I invite him to provide a sourced counterexample." and by the way, it wasn't one teacher, it was 36 teachers.
R2.
Asking them if they want to leave is giving them help. They can get home schooled like Einstein, you know.
R3.
Gee, no I did not misunderstood the meaning of drop out. What are you talking about? The meaning of drop out doesn't only means to voluntarily leave, it also has a meaning: getting forced to leave.
http://endic.naver.com...
http://krdic.naver.com...
R4.
It is unreasonableness that all good jobtraining should be brought in to school, so your saying that 100s of academy teachers should give up their job just because of this? You wouldn't want that, would you?
R5.
Come on, is school the only way to get educated? No. I talked about home schooling which should be allowed to students who does not want to attend school.
R6.
In that source, I was talking about the suicide rate of each country.

Since I had wrote a long way down here, I will skip summarizing the whole points again.

Rather than that, I want to explain to the judges why I had won.

In on the government size had won over my opponent because I had strong points, I could keep up on counter rebuting, and I had good sources of information.
Also, to point out my opponent's mistakes: He only had one point which was about good educated citizens being good citizens ( which I had counter rebut ) , and he did not give sources to the information he talked about in round 3.

Yes, this was my first debate. But even if we loose, win or tie, I thank my opponent for giving such effort untill now and for accepting the debate. And for the judges, thank you for listening to us untill the last round and it will be a great pleasure if you judge fairly between me and my opponent.
Again, for everyone....

Thank you.
Mimshot

Con

Since this is the last round I will not be adding any new arguments. I will briefly comment on my opponent's points from this round and then reiterate that while there may be numerous problems with the school system, allowing students to drop out is not the right solution for any of them.

My opponent has again criticized my sources for focusing too much on the United States. My sources showed that in the U.S. drop outs earn less money and are more likely to engage in anti-social behavior. In my response to this criticism, I encouraged my opponent to either provide a source suggesting that this trend is not present in other countries or to give an explanation why this connection between dropouts and crime or earnings should be a uniquely American phenomenon. He has done neither.

R1
Hey, no offence but, you asked me: "then I invite him to provide a sourced counterexample." and by the way, it wasn't one teacher, it was 36 teachers.

A few misbehaving American teachers (who weren't dropouts) does not say that the association between crime and dropouts is peculiar to America.

R2
Asking them if they want to leave is giving them help. They can get home schooled like Einstein, you know.

Once again, I have provided sources saying that Einstein finished his schooling, earning both a diploma and a doctorate. My opponent has appealed to "common knowledge" that Einstein was a drop out. Finally, this is a debate about dropping out of school, not about home schooling. I have no problem with home schooling provided the children learn what is expected. Home schooling is not the same as dropping out.

R3
Gee, no I did not misunderstood the meaning of drop out. What are you talking about? The meaning of drop out doesn't only means to voluntarily leave, it also has a meaning: getting forced to leave.

A Korean dictionary defining a Korean word does not have any bearing of the meaning of the English word "dropout" in English.

R4
It is unreasonableness that all good jobtraining should be brought in to school, so your saying that 100s of academy teachers should give up their job just because of this? You wouldn't want that, would you?

It is not unreasonable. It is, in fact, a much better solution than allowing students to drop out of formal schooling.

R5
Again, this isn't about homeschooling, it's about dropping out.

R6
In that source, I was talking about the suicide rate of each country.

In previous round my opponent claimed 60% of suicides were due to bullying, something that wasn't in the source. No amount of word wrangling is going to make that preposterous statistic true.

Finally, my opponent complained that I haven't added enough sources after my initial round. This is because I wasn't making new factual claims -- I was just arguing why we should interpret those facts to support the premise that allowing students to drop out is bad policy. Better sources doesn't mean more sources.

Students should not be allowed to drop out. Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by buelg 2 years ago
buelg
hey that is cruel!
Posted by buelg 2 years ago
buelg
duh, you know what? I think we will tie in the debate, mimshot.
Posted by Mimshot 2 years ago
Mimshot
Careful there, 16kadams, or I'll turn you into a liberal.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
um wouldn't schooling = more revenue? More education means more intellect which means more wealth which leads to more wealth the goverment taxes.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
buelgMimshotTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious.
Vote Placed by TUF 2 years ago
TUF
buelgMimshotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: tie. I noticed politeness on both sides. I was fairly convinced buelg by the end of the debate. While I think school is important, I feel the pro has convinced me that being forced to go to school is going to make a student more unwilling. Also freedoms give the students more incentive. Sometimes it takes experiential learning to undertsand the importance of school, as I have learned.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
buelgMimshotTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: superior arguments on all accounts by the con